Legal Opinion

Dunkle v. Middleburg Municipal Authority

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 10, 2004PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

JUDGE LEAVITT.

John Dunkle and Mary Dunkle (Dun-kles), individually and as co-administrators of the Estate of William K. Dunkle, appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of the 17th Judicial District (trial court) granting the Middleburg Municipal Authority’s (Authority) motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that the Dunkles could not make out a common law tort claim against the Authority, which is the first determination to be made where the defense of governmental immunity is asserted. We affirm.

William K. Dunkle (decedent), the Dun-kles’ son, was asphyxiated…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Dean v. Com., Dept. of Transp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Ulmen v. SchwiegerMontana Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Philadelphia Electric Co. v. JulianSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  4. Ortiz v. Ra-El Development Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Beckman v. Butte-Silver Bow CountyMontana Supreme Court · 2000

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Limbach Co., LLC v. City of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. LaChance v. Michael Baker Corp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Reed v. Pittsburgh Board of Public EducationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Liverpool Township v. StephensCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. D. Sobat and E. Sobat v. The Borough of Midland ~ Appeal of: E. SobatCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API